What caused the American Revolution? Britain began to impose taxes on its colonies in America to help pay for the War and for the ongoing costs of defense. What causes this revolution? America, the second installment of “taxation without representation”, taxes its citizens to help pay for wars against people of color and for the ongoing cost of defense! America, a nation under [some] god, by the end of the year, would have spent 710 billion dollars on war and for 2009 the plan is to spend another 700 plus billion.

However, for the citizens that are not fearful, we must demand an investment of 200 billion dollars into clean water, the soil and agriculture over the next two years and then call for an evaluation, determining the impact on the creation of jobs, on peace, on world hunger and on disease. Reagan said, “Trust but verify”, and I cannot verify why ‘we’ continue to support King George (coincidence, but I speak to whoever sits in the executive seat) of America anymore. He is a tyrant by the standards of Free$peech (James Otis) and other Native rebels. He put taxes on the citizens' essentials, and many other items that we use frequently, if not daily to pay for war and the cost of government. Pay 200 billion dollars a year toward our National debt and my children’s children will not have to live in an America that joyously create debt and war. 200 billion to clean water, the soil and agriculture and 200 billion toward our National debt stills leaves 300 billion for military spending, which would be 11 billion dollars more than the next great military empire, Europe.

So, to free themselves from these tyrannic taxes, the citizens united and boycotted America’s policies of increased debt and more war, products of complete stupidity. The Americans in America began systemically breaking away from Americanism with which they disagreed extremely. These policies said that with more money, a country has more power. Americans lost hard-earned money to the government because of the Americanism policy. Americans sold their raw materials to the mother country at low prices and bought back the finished products at exceedingly high prices because they could not make them themselves. Meaning, because I cannot build my own house and produce my own food, I have to get dressed in garments I did not fashion and travel to and fro to a job that requires transportation I did not train or make with my hands, causes my oppressions and unhappiness; but, more importantly, proves why this nation under a god fails miserably and will be confronted by Jah’s soldiers.

LG

P.S.It does not matter to me when counsel is received…I heard where there is no vision the people will surely die, so I communicate the vision in hopes that the people will live…

_________________The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.-- Archibald Macleish

No taxation without representation? Unless you live in DC, you really can't make that claim. You have a representative in the House and two senators. And today there are actually more people in Congress that are directly accountable to the people than the founders had envisioned. (Originally, US Senators were appointed by their state senates.)

And if you want less taxes and a smaller military, there are easier routes to go than revolution. Most people don't want to fight. (And besides, as you've stated, we have the strongest military on the planet.) But, as Barack Obama and Ron Paul just showed us, a lot of people are down to organize. And if you look at the Republican party you'll find a lot of folks, especially in state politics, that are reflexively anti-tax. However, you'll also find that they are pro-military. But I think that a good number can be convinced that you can't really claim to be serious about reducing the size of government without also reducing the size of the military. Right now, Republicans are soul-searching. If they lose again in 2010, and they probably will, then they will be very open to new ideas.

As far as war goes, we'll be spending less in the near future. We're about to get out of Iraq. (The Iraqis only signed on to a status of forces agreement because Obama won the election and had promised to leave Iraq. And keeping Bob Gates, to me, signals that he intends to make good on that.) And Iraq is where the bulk of war spending went.

With Afghanistan, I don't know. I think that Obama knows that the source of power for the Taliban, which is now really more of a network of Afghani nationalist organizations than a single Islamist terrorist organization, is the perceived illegitimacy and actual corruption of the Karzai government. Furthermore, a lot of Pakistanis see Karzai as a puppet of the Indians and the US, who they think are trying to isolate and contain Pakistan. So I don't necessarily think that an increased US presence in Afghanistan and especially in the Waziristan region of Pakistan is going to be effective in the long term. In fact, all it really does is confirm their misgivings.

Then again, Obama might be right. (Every time I disagreed with him in the campaign, he proved that he is smarter than me.) We've been relying heavily on air-strikes in Afghanistan and in turn killing more civilians than have the Taliban, the supposed terrorists. That's not a good look. If we actually had more boots on the ground, there'd be a lot less innocent people getting caught in the middle, which would do a lot for perceptions of the US. And if we get more NGOs and the foreign service involved, we'd be doing a better job of rebuilding. Afghanistan's been at war for lthe past 30 years or so. They're second only to Somalia in terms of lack of order.

And I don't know where you got the figure for clean water and agricultural. I haven't been hearing a lot of folks call for that. (Most of the lefties have been more interested in transportation, energy and health care and most of the conservatives well...I don't even know what they're about right now.) So yeah, I'd be interested in hearing about that.

Considering your understanding and wealth of knowledge, I am honored to have a honest debate or search for truth. I thank you for helping me get closer to the truth. Continue with me...

Yes. I do have representatives and senators representing 'me', however, do they truly represent me never having heard from me or even knowing me and what my family supports and believes. Consider yourself the defendant and me the prosecutor, and think about what you would do if your lawyer did not have your best interest in mind, you would fire him; likewise, these politicians have stopped representing some people a long time ago. Consider the Scripture that says, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us."

Out of respect, please refrain from setting a rule that I cannot say this or that. I am taxed without representation. My family do not pledge allegiance to country or Americanism and most representatives do; my family believes our tax dollars should go towards agriculture and clean water, but my representatives allow for corporations to poison our land and water; and my family believes America, the institution, is a power grab by the few. Big Doug, point me to a senator or representative that represents 'our' views.

My revolution is warfare, but considering your viewpoint, my revolution needs clarity; it is a non-violent revolution, one that promotes discourse and understanding, a spiritual warfare--Matrix's language without the gun battles and fighting. These representatives you say I have are mortgaging our country to the Saudi's and Chinese, because they seek to maintain their power and satisfy their greed. Like you have a right to fire your lawyer/representative in the example above, I have that same right, to say I do not have a representative.

You told WhiteMike about his ideals, I say the same to you here. Ideally, you're right, I have representatives, but realistically, I do not--my representative would never give billions upon billions to the wealthy. This beautiful country has been maligned by my so called representatives, but if they would have "remained with us", this would not be. Consider all the problems discussed on these threads, problems created by "representatives". As far as Ag and clean water are concerned, my suggestions were more a proposal than some actual legislation, a proposal a representative of mine would fight for. I believe a future based on Ag and clean water would achieve peace more efficiently than military might. Now again, point me to my representative--you cannot!

The Republican Party are not looking for new ideas in order to be a representative, they're looking for new ideas to regain power.

_________________The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.-- Archibald Macleish

When I wrote that you have representatives in Congress, I mean that you have people that technically do represent you. You are someone's constituent. You're probably right in that they don't represent your particular interests. I'm not sure where you live, so I don't know who you have in Congress. But the point remains the same. You have representatives. You apparently define "represent" in a way that the founders did not. As such, I don't think your use of "no taxation without representation" is really appropriate because it doesn't really represent their view.

And I think it's you that's the idealist here. I think that you have a very unrealistic expectation if you expect that you can elect someone to Congress that will only spend tax dollars on clean water and agriculture. People in Congress, even in districts that are dependent on agriculture have a variety of interest groups to satisfy. For example, I live in Oxnard, California. In this one city, we rely heavily on both agriculture and heavy industry. We also have one of the largest Navy bases in California in a neighboring city (Port Hueneme) and an Air Force base in another (Point Magu). Therefore, if you want to represent Oxnard, you need to represent agricultural, industrial and military interests. And that's not even taking into account that most of us that live here are somewhat socially conservative Democrats and as such there are a lot of religious interest groups to contend with--in particular the Catholic Church. Furthermore, this is a relatively densely populated city. So there are urban interests, which include, of course, clean water concerns. And this is one city. And our Congressional District includes other coastal cities like Santa Barbara that are completely different in terms of their economy, their demographics and social views.

In other words, in order to represent a large group of people, you need to represent a variety of interests. Sometimes these interests are in conflict with one another. Sometimes they can compromise but often it's a zero-sum game. And as a result, the road to winning an election usually involves building a coalition of some interests but leaving out others. Business and labor, for example, usually find themselves on opposing sides in elections. Therefore if one side wins, the other will not be "represented" in the way that you define it. But I think that this is just a necessary result of a republican system. The only way that every voice will be heard is through direct democracy, which is not really a feasible way to do things on a national level. Hell, we do some of that in California with ballot initiatives. But even that, I think, is too much. People end up voting on things, like competing crime and alternative energy bills, that I think are better left to elected representatives who can hear expert testimony and rely on legislative staffs.

So I don't think you can really develop a system that doesn't have this problem. Some people, especially people like you, whose views are only held by a minority of the population, will not find many good choices for representatives. Right now, neither national party is serious about deficit reduction. But right now, I don't think that they should be. We're in a recession. Now isn't the time to worry about deficits. Furthermore, if you want to look at what problems we have and where we're going to need investment, I don't think it's in agriculture. If anything, I think agriculture is overly subsidized. And these subsidies aren't just costly to us in terms of our tax dollars. They hurt developing countries by keeping world food prices artificially low, which makes it difficult for them to compete and thus to grow economically. I think that where the government should be investing is in infrastructure, specifically mass transit, and even more specifically suburb to suburb lines. We should also be looking at alternative energy and health care. And if you're worried about deficits, health care is probably the most serious issue in the long term. Our system currently provides less care to less people than most European systems and costs more. And those costs are only going to go up. So in my view, we need to run up deficits in the short term. We can worry about them when our economy is in better shape. Spending cuts and or tax hikes, which would be needed to balance the budget, are the worse thing we can do right now.

So there you go.

And nah, the Republican Party's looking to do both. Right now they don't represent a coalition that can win on a national level. And my point was really just that if you want to really effect change you need to work within the system, specifically within the major parties. So I offered a suggestion. But that's my view. In any case, we're living in a time where organization is as easy as it's ever been, thanks to the internet and an election where a lot of folks were engaged. Therefore, if you took the initiative, you could realistically organize some folks around your principles and lobby your representatives.

But what do I know? I'm a pretty conventional liberal. So I'm pretty comfortable with my representatives (Lois Capps, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.) I'm also very happy about the election of Barack Obama. And, with the exception of Hillary for state, I like his choices for his cabinet.

When I wrote that you have representatives in Congress, I mean that you have people that technically do represent you. You are someone's constituent. You're probably right in that they don't represent your particular interests. I'm not sure where you live, so I don't know who you have in Congress. But the point remains the same. You have representatives. You apparently define "represent" in a way that the founders did not. As such, I don't think your use of "no taxation without representation" is really appropriate because it doesn't really represent their view.

And I think it's you that's the idealist here. I think that you have a very unrealistic expectation if you expect that you can elect someone to Congress that will only spend tax dollars on clean water and agriculture. People in Congress, even in districts that are dependent on agriculture have a variety of interest groups to satisfy. For example, I live in Oxnard, California. In this one city, we rely heavily on both agriculture and heavy industry. We also have one of the largest Navy bases in California in a neighboring city (Port Hueneme) and an Air Force base in another (Point Magu). Therefore, if you want to represent Oxnard, you need to represent agricultural, industrial and military interests. And that's not even taking into account that most of us that live here are somewhat socially conservative Democrats and as such there are a lot of religious interest groups to contend with--in particular the Catholic Church. Furthermore, this is a relatively densely populated city. So there are urban interests, which include, of course, clean water concerns. And this is one city. And our Congressional District includes other coastal cities like Santa Barbara that are completely different in terms of their economy, their demographics and social views.

In other words, in order to represent a large group of people, you need to represent a variety of interests. Sometimes these interests are in conflict with one another. Sometimes they can compromise but often it's a zero-sum game. And as a result, the road to winning an election usually involves building a coalition of some interests but leaving out others. Business and labor, for example, usually find themselves on opposing sides in elections. Therefore if one side wins, the other will not be "represented" in the way that you define it. But I think that this is just a necessary result of a republican system. The only way that every voice will be heard is through direct democracy, which is not really a feasible way to do things on a national level. Hell, we do some of that in California with ballot initiatives. But even that, I think, is too much. People end up voting on things, like competing crime and alternative energy bills, that I think are better left to elected representatives who can hear expert testimony and rely on legislative staffs.

So I don't think you can really develop a system that doesn't have this problem. Some people, especially people like you, whose views are only held by a minority of the population, will not find many good choices for representatives. Right now, neither national party is serious about deficit reduction. But right now, I don't think that they should be. We're in a recession. Now isn't the time to worry about deficits. Furthermore, if you want to look at what problems we have and where we're going to need investment, I don't think it's in agriculture. If anything, I think agriculture is overly subsidized. And these subsidies aren't just costly to us in terms of our tax dollars. They hurt developing countries by keeping world food prices artificially low, which makes it difficult for them to compete and thus to grow economically. I think that where the government should be investing is in infrastructure, specifically mass transit, and even more specifically suburb to suburb lines. We should also be looking at alternative energy and health care. And if you're worried about deficits, health care is probably the most serious issue in the long term. Our system currently provides less care to less people than most European systems and costs more. And those costs are only going to go up. So in my view, we need to run up deficits in the short term. We can worry about them when our economy is in better shape. Spending cuts and or tax hikes, which would be needed to balance the budget, are the worse thing we can do right now.

So there you go.

And nah, the Republican Party's looking to do both. Right now they don't represent a coalition that can win on a national level. And my point was really just that if you want to really effect change you need to work within the system, specifically within the major parties. So I offered a suggestion. But that's my view. In any case, we're living in a time where organization is as easy as it's ever been, thanks to the internet and an election where a lot of folks were engaged. Therefore, if you took the initiative, you could realistically organize some folks around your principles and lobby your representatives.

But what do I know? I'm a pretty conventional liberal. So I'm pretty comfortable with my representatives (Lois Capps, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and next month, Barack Obama.)

Peace

I live in NE. You are obviously well rehearsed in understanding politics but I seek no greater understanding of it. I do have more issues than just Ag and clean water, issues like Native American initiatives, but representatives, they appoint greedy and corrupt people, and they robbed the Native Americans of billions (remember the Department of Interior burning papers that proved that the Native Americans were owed billions). I understand representatives quite clearly, Big Doug. The difference here is not our understanding of representatives, it is whether or not to continue to trust them. On top of Ag, clean water, and Native American initiatives, I also care about the growing prison population, abortion and NASA spending (we have no interest in moons around Saturn, but I am taxed to help pay for this chasing after wind). I also care about my mother-in-law having to go to Mexico to get alternative, holistic treatment for cancer. Now that I have pointed out more issues that concern me, can you find us a representative? I will not hold my breath.

We are taking initiatives--initiatives that help rebuild bridges between African Americans and Native Americans and all Americans that hear and perceive, initiatives that reform Ag usage and explore more Community Supported Ag, and initiatives that use alternative educations to decrease minority drop-out rates. Yes! We use the system to prepare for life without it. You think I am idealist, but Egypt collapsed and Babylon collapsed and Rome collapsed and America will collapsed, and like those nations before it--it will collapsed because representatives no longer represented their faith, creed and people. So as far as the working within the system is concerned, Big Doug, there is a wonderful document called The Declaration of Independence, and we will use it, because what proof do you still need that you are no longer being represented in this nation. Booker T Washington said freedom through Ag and the Bible says faith, obedience and Ag, and our representatives say it will be better; the latter are well-intentioned fools. However, they do enough to satisfy you, and hopefully, someday they will.

Your explanation was good and I understand your perspective, but it only work for those with misplaced hope. America has been sold to the highest bidder and the highest bidder don't give a damn about what is going on in the Pine Ridge Reservation; don't give a damn about waters children can no longer swim in; don't give a damn about Big Ag Corporations, the one getting your subsidies, squeezing out the local farmers; and don't give a damn about America's increasing infant mortality rate. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same things--voting and trusting representatives and their promises--and expecting different results!

I do not need you to educate me or need you to define what things mean; you come off as un-empathetic and only interested in showing your boxed knowledge; however, I am not WhiteMike, abstract...I am interested in pursuing truth and logic not dependent upon human ideas. I am offering you feelings and you respond with a lecture and a vocabulary lesson. Lets just talk...

By the way, our influence is growing...

_________________The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.-- Archibald Macleish

Well, I only wrote all that out because I thought you were espousing a fundamentally unrealistic view of what a representative could be. I thought it lacked perspective. I still do. I was just trying to provide it. And I still don't think you've made a good argument on that front. But that's beside the point. I'll agree to disagree with you there. So yeah, let's not get into a back and forth over that. I agree. Let's just talk.

I'm more interested in your views about what government can do to build bridges between Blacks and Native Americans. This one hits me at a very personal level, considering I would not be here were it not for the generosity shown by the Black Foot in Oklahoma in giving refuge to some of my ancestors, after they were forced to leave Madagascar. I agree that our communities have lost the link that we've historically had--much like we, as Black people, have lost a lot of our links to the Jewish community. I know that work can be done. But I'm interested in what you believe the government's role is here.

Same goes for community-based agriculture. I'm not sure what the federal government's role should be there. I guess that we can both agree that agricultural subsidies are counter-productive--though probably for different reasons. For me, it has to do with the world economy, as well as with energy issues. I'm not sure about your views though.

As for abortion, I'm pretty staunchly pro-choice. I'm not sure where you stand.

And with regard to your representatives, the only one I've really paid a good deal of attention to is Chuck Hagel, who's insights on the failures in our foreign policy I've thought to be very helpful. I'm not sure that I can agree with him on much else though.

You are obviously very interlocked with politics; meaning, you seem to buffer what you understand through the prism of politics. However, what I am talking about is these things happening because there is a need. The revolution I am talking about spawns from this need and from the understanding that government is a tool manipulated by the few for the few. Government cannot help me and the revolution is understanding that and accepting it in order to build our own future with said reality, and when the time is right, we take our Declaration of Independence case to the United Nations.

As far as Native Americans are concerned, I spent several summers on the Crow Indian rez and I am working on reconnecting our relationships via Nature, Agriculture and the Great Spirit. This is not about politics; its about fighting for the defenseless and seeking justice--concepts beyond government understanding. The future is about the poor, the elderly, the orphans and the oppressed, causes government are unwilling to fight for. Also, as far as the rebuilding bridges, when the business plan is completed, I will private message it to you. However, we are fast moving in developing the mission and recruiting folks of the Omaha tribe and Winnebago tribe in addition to the Crow people.

Let me be clear--government is the enemy and like the Black Panthers said, "Politics is war without bloodshed." And, we are at war and things will be much better when the poor unite and actualize their power, when they realize 'they' are at war. Again, our ideas are independent of human ideas, chiefly politics, so understand that our ideas are spiritual, so then, for this discussion to reap any good fruit, either I would enter a political discussion with you or you would have to enter a spiritual discussion with me.

_________________The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.-- Archibald Macleish

Well, I think the difference between you and me is that I'm pretty comfortable with working within the system we have. I don't like everyone involved. And I don't agree with everything we do, especially in foreign policy and law enforcement. But overall, I'm good. I see the potential for change. And I'm very optimistic about the incoming administration.

I mean, I think it's fine that you've concluded that "government cannot help" you. Whatever. Do you. But me, I look at what government has accomplished and still have faith that more is possible. I look at Barack Obama's appointment of Tom Daschle to Health and Human Services, for example, as a great thing. Daschle, as you probably know, is very knowledgeable on the inner workings of Congress and very passionate about health-care. I see no reason to believe that they won't do some big things for expanding health-care coverage. And for all your talk about what government can or can't do for poor folks, I'm doubting that you'll accomplish something as significant as expanding health-care coverage to include all Americans. That's not a knock against you or your abilities, I really don't know you or what you're capable of, but I highly doubt you or your movement or any movement for that matter will gain enough power to rival the federal government any time soon. That's my thing, I think that the best way to effect change is through the system. This can mean actually working in the system, or just organizing outside of it to shepherd public opinion towards your views, which in turn puts pressure on the government to act. (Believe it or not, if someone in Congress starts getting bombarded with calls about a specific policy, it will effect their actions.)

And yes, government can be and often is the enemy. I think that our anti-drug policies, for example, are fundamentally unjust, counter-productive and, in general, a waste of money. (And I'm not very optimistic about Eric Holder heading justice.) I know that law enforcement has been used to carry out oppressive policies. I know that we are engaging in a pointless and unjust war in Iraq. And thanks to a new Senate report, I now know for a fact that our president is a tribunal away from officially being a war criminal. All that is terrible. But I think the difference between me and you is that I don't see the government as a monolith or a single entity. I see it as complex. I've worked in city government, specifically in youth services and in public education. I've seen government work for people--poor people, and especially poor children. I know that there's more to it than its flaws. Most importantly, you mentioned the Black Panthers. I know that they failed...maybe that's why I'm generally dismissive of talk of revolution. Maybe that's unfair or narrow-minded. But it is what it is.

Basically, while I'm not a follower of Saul Alinsky, I do agree with his basic premise that we should work within the system as it exists and not as we think it should exist.

I know that's not the spiritual discussion you were looking for, but that's not what I'm really about.

No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.

Barry Goldwater:

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed.

Couldn't say it any better myself!

_________________The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.-- Archibald Macleish

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum